We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and ImmuniWeb based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"It improves future security scans."
"The most valuable features are the SLA of Zero false-positives, less time of service development, validation of unlimited patched vulnerabilities, and several others."
"ImmuniWeb is stable."
"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."
"I like the fully automated continuous discovery run by ImmuniWeb in the background. We do not need to rerun the same tests or the same scanning against our resources. We need to supply our IP addresses, domain names, and significant resources with special domain names and URLs, and we need to do it only once. Then we always have an up-to-date picture. I also like the integration with our single sign-on system. We do not need to maintain a separate set of usernames or user accounts. We can plug this ImmuniWeb service into our authentication technology, enabling two-factor authentication. We have secure authentication right out of the box. The other important feature I like is the executive view. You can easily switch from a technical view to an executive view and have a helicopter view of the compliance status. We can see how much effort is required and our current status."
"The initial setup process is user-friendly."
"After the assessment, you clearly know which assets require penetration testing."
"ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. The solution is highly stable. The solution is scalable. Editing Key Points for Review "Review about ImmuniWeb" What is our primary use case? We use the solution when we face challenges and urgent attention is needed for complex cases from our clients. To address this, we collaborate with the middleware, internal, and client teams to analyze and sort through intricate logs concerning our business cybersecurity program. How has it helped my organization? The solution helped us with one of our clients in the New York area contacted us about a data breach. In response, we swiftly organized a case meeting involving our client, internal, and email customer support teams. Together, we conducted an incident response, facilitating offline assistance for proper planning and risk management processes. We delved into the details of the data breach, identified how it occurred, and collaborated to rectify the issue. The client expressed satisfaction with the resolution process. What is most valuable? ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. It also focuses on consumer satisfaction and operates in English-speaking markets, primarily required by the UAE, the United States, Canada, and Australia, among other developed countries. For how long have I used the solution? We have been using this product for the past one and half years. What do I think about the stability of the solution? The solution is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. How are customer service and support? Support is generally excellent"
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"Reporting could be improved."
"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent. When we are coding the endpoint it will not work, we have to use Windows Agent. This is something they could improve."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."
"A great idea would be to support using Discovery on the internal network, allowing delivery of all the features of the current Discovery to internal network resources."
"A great idea would be to make a mobile application for the ImmuniWeb portal so that all information would be available on the go and from a mobile phone as well. It would be much more convenient."
"ImmuniWeb sometimes shows previous scans instead of running tests."
"The product’s interface for the web applications could be similar to Android and iOS versions."
"It would be better if they had an automated tagging feature. The tagging functionality currently requires manual tagging, and that's probably the most needed feature from my standpoint. We also do not have enough tools, enough features, or options to display different resources in the way we need. There are basic grouping and some filtering features, but we still cannot fully separate some flavors of our resources. However, we may not be aware of the latest features."
"The deployment process on the cloud is straightforward, while on-premise can be complex. Support is generally excellent, although there can be delays in ticket resolution."
"Its technical support could be better."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 9th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 56 reviews while ImmuniWeb is ranked 17th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 7 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while ImmuniWeb is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ImmuniWeb writes "Easy initial setup process, but reporting feature for web scanning tools need improvement". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas ImmuniWeb is most compared with Qualys Web Application Scanning, Acunetix, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, OWASP Zap and Veracode. See our Fortify on Demand vs. ImmuniWeb report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
